I think that in a US court, this maybe maybe could bring a sua
sponte action from the court; more likely the other party would file a
motion to which the court would definitely respond.
I (NAL) have no clue
how this will play out in the UK (there's been a lot of posting over the years
on Groklaw about how "SCO's lawyers wouldn't get away with that over here! - so
I have high, but uncertain, hopes) but there's some things in the ruling I think
will bear repeating:
49. Mr. Hacon, in summary, makes three
points. First of all, he says Apple are not making the assertion any
more. Second, he says that nothing in the order in relation to the
newspapers is something that Samsung could not do for itself. They are big boys
and they can pay for advertisements in newspapers. Third, Mr. Hacon refers to
prejudice to Apple that would be caused by putting a statement on their website.
Essentially the argument is that by putting a reference to Samsung on Apple's
website, that risks diverting sales to Samsung so that Samsung essentially are
getting free advertising from Apple.
50. As to the first point, I
need to consider what Apple are saying now. I have cited one example that
has been said by Mr. Hely on Apple's behalf since the judgment was handed
down.
51. In my judgment, Apple are carefully trying to say something
which contains an innuendo that Samsung infringe without actually saying it.
The reference to copying is exactly that. It is clear that copying plays no part
in this case for Registered Community Design infringement, but to many people
outside the circles of intellectual property law to say something infringes a
Registered Community Design and to say someone copied your design or your
product is to say the same thing. (emphases mine, in all
instances above and below)
Now we see how Apple "complied" with the
order:
[...] So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty
of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of
creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung willfully copied Apple's far more
popular iPad.
So, I guess I would ask - does Apple think
that this is acceptable because it's blatant, not innuendo? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
